Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement 7-1

7 Comparison of Alternatives

7.1 Introduction

In order to accomplish a multidisciplinary evaluation of alternatives, FRA, FTA, and ADOT, in 

collaboration with FHWA, undertook an Alternatives Analysis (AA) as part of the APRCS that 

involved conceptual engineering of possible alternative alignments at a level appropriate for 

cost estimating, scheduling, operational analyses, and community involvement. Summary 

information taken from the AA forms the basis of Chapter 3, Public Agency Coordination;

Chapter 4, Transportation Impacts; Chapter 5, Existing Conditions and Environmental 

Consequences; and Chapter 7, Cost Analysis of this Tier 1 EIS. This chapter combines the 

corridor-level analysis contained in Chapter 6, Cost Analysis with the AA findings reported in 

the other chapters to compare the potential performance and environmental impacts of a 

passenger rail system within each corridor alternative and the No Build Alternative. Community 

and other environmental impacts, financial feasibility, ease of implementation and operating 

characteristics, and mobility and safety are compared in the tables in this chapter. Detailed 

descriptions of the two corridor alternatives are included in Chapter 3, Public Agency 

Coordination and illustrated on Figure 3-4. Based on that comparison, this chapter also 

identifies the agencies’ Preferred Alternative. 

7.2 Impact and Performance Comparison

Combined, the Tier 1 EIS and AA for the APRCS cover a broad range of topics intended to inform 

program-level decisions as well as future decision-making on potential major infrastructure 

investments. Capital, operating, and maintenance cost estimates and travel times were 

developed in the AA based on conceptual alignments within each corridor alternative; and 

conceptual station locations along these alignments were used to model potential ridership and 

estimate potential changes in VMT, air pollutant emissions, injuries, and fatalities. All of these 

numbers are representational; a future passenger rail system and associated stations could be 

located anywhere within a given corridor, requiring further data gathering, impact analysis, and 

more specific mitigation tailored to a specific design and alignment. The tables on the following 

pages provide qualitative and high-level quantitative data on a number of criteria to allow 

comparison between the No Build Alternative and the two corridor alternatives. 

7.2.1 Community and Other Environmental Criteria

Table 7-1 compares community and other environmental factors potentially affected by a 

passenger rail system within the Yellow and Orange corridor alternatives and the No Build 

Alternative. The resources listed on this table are a combination of data gathered for the AA 

and elements analyzed in Chapter 5 – Existing Conditions and Environmental Consequences 
7 Comparison of Alternatives

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement 7-2

Table 7-1. Comparison of Community and Environmental Criteria

Criterion Yellow Corridor Orange Corridor No Build

Potential need for conversion of nontransportation land usesModerate Moderate to High N/A

Compatibility with local plans

Compatible Moderately

Incompatible

Compatible

Compatibility with underlying property 

ownership

Moderately 

Incompatible

Compatible Compatible

Compatibility of station areasa

Compatible Moderately 

Incompatible 

N/A

Existing population within station area districtb 851,713 717,329 N/A

Existing employment within station area 

districtb

796,426 726,212 N/A

Future population within station area districtb 1,188,103 1,027,518 N/A

Future employment within station area 

districtb

1,036,490 939,520 N/A

Existing minority population within station 

area districtb

481,916 404,114 N/A

Existing low-income population within station 

area districtb

296,018 265,145 N/A

Parks

(200-foot ROW corridor)

151

(21)

146

(20)

N/A

Daily reduction in NOX emissions (STOPS)

c

(kg.) 516 519 d

Daily reduction in CO emissions (STOPS) (kg.) 9,507 9,563 d

Daily reduction in VOC emissions (STOPS) (kg.) 340 342 d

Daily reduction in PM10 emissions (STOPS) (kg.) 6 6

d

Daily reduction in CO2 emissions (STOPS) (kg.)

242,072 243,504

Daily reduction in SO2 emissions (STOPS) (kg.) 2.39 2.40

Potential noise receptors 

(within 1,800-foot sensitivity distance)

51,260

(39,450)

50,094

(34,155)

N/A

Potential vibration impacts 4,925 2,325 N/A

Hazardous materials sites 1,511 1,142 e

Rivers, washes, or arroyos (linear feet) 1,480,187 1,910,872 e

Potential wetlands (acres) 1,032 1,476 e

100-year Floodplain (acres) 9,330 9,876 e

Wildlife corridors 20 26 e

Wildlife linkage zones crossed (miles) 20.3 32.93 e

Annual reduction in gasoline usage (gallons) 3,037,000 3,058,000 d
7 Comparison of Alternatives

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement 7-3

Table 7-1. Comparison of Community and Environmental Criteria

Criterion Yellow Corridor Orange Corridor No Build

Visual, aesthetic, and scenic resource impacts

Minimal to 

Moderate

Moderate to

High

Minimal

Known archaeological resources 372 418 e

Historic resources listed on the National 

Register of Historic Places 

158 126 e

a Conceptual station areas at major intersections or activity centers; not specific sites 

b A 3-mile radius surrounding each conceptual station area

c Simplified Trips-on-Project Software (STOPS) is a ridership modeling program utilized by FTA

d Likely increases in pollutant emissions and gasoline usage from increased vehicular congestion not calculated for this Tier 1 

analysis

e Potential impacts from other reasonably foreseeable projects are not calculated for this Tier 1 analysis

using available GIS data for the 1-mile-wide corridor alternatives. Because the physical footprint 

and exact location of a passenger rail system have not been determined, this Tier 1 EIS reported 

on the total resources within a 1-mile-wide corridor to form a basis for comparing, in relative 

terms, the potential intensity of impacts and benefits between alternatives. Quantities of 

potentially affected parks and potential noise receptors were estimated for narrower corridors, 

in addition to their mile-wide corridor totals; the narrower-effect numbers appear in 

parentheses directly beneath the quantities for the mile-wide corridors. 

In summary, a passenger rail system within the Yellow Corridor Alternative would be more 

compatible with existing local plans and property ownership; serve a larger population; and 

potentially affect slightly fewer natural resources, sensitive noise receptors, viewers, and 

known archaeological resources than a passenger rail system within the Orange Corridor 

Alternative. The potential to affect historic resources, hazardous materials, and parks would be 

slightly greater within the Yellow Corridor Alternative compared to a passenger rail system 

within the Orange Corridor Alternative. Although serving a smaller population, a passenger rail 

system within the Orange Corridor Alternative has a greater potential to reduce gasoline 

consumption and criteria pollutant emissions than a passenger rail system within the Yellow 

Corridor Alternative. The potential to affect water resources, wildlife corridors, and potential 

species habitat would be greater within the Orange Corridor Alternative. Compared to the 

No Build Alternative, a passenger rail system within either corridor alternative offers increased 

access to transit for protected populations and economic generators as well as improved air 

quality and energy consumption. 
7 Comparison of Alternatives

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement 7-4

Prior to the Tier 2 NEPA analysis, special status species and wildlife movement studies/surveys 

would be conducted so that the data are available to inform the NEPA process and the 

establishment of alignment alternatives. 

7.2.2 Financial Feasibility, Implementation, and Operating Characteristics

Table 7-2 compares financial feasibility, ease of implementation, and operating characteristics 

between a passenger rail system within the Yellow and Orange corridor alternatives and the No 

Build Alternative. See Chapter 7, Cost Analysis for a detailed explanation of the line items in the 

table.

Table 7-2. Comparison of Financial Feasibility, Ease of Implementation, and Operating 

Characteristics

Criterion Yellow Corridor Orange Corridor No Build

Annual operating cost for 

commuter rail plus intercity rail 

service (2013 dollars)

$67 Million $86.0 Million $0

Capital cost (2013 dollars) $4.5 Billion $7.6 Billion $0

Annual operating cost per 

commuter rail passenger (2013

dollars)

$10.37 $15.99 $0

Annual operating cost per intercity 

rail passenger (2013 dollars)

$14.73 $15.38 $0

Right-of-Way cost (2013 dollars) $144.9 Million $62.1 Million $0

Ease of Implementation Moderate Low N/A

Predictability and Dependability Moderate High Low

A passenger rail system within the Orange Corridor Alternative would have a substantially 

greater capital cost as one within the Yellow Corridor Alternative and would be more difficult to 

implement. The operating and maintenance costs would be higher as well. While the ROW cost 

for a passenger rail system within the Yellow Corridor Alternative is potentially higher than one 

within the Orange Corridor Alternative, the lower estimated annual operating cost would 

recover the difference in estimated ROW cost within the first six years of operation. While the 

No Build Alternative would not incur any of these costs, it would not meet the identified 

purpose and need for an alternate transportation mode between Tucson and Phoenix.
7 Comparison of Alternatives

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement 7-5

7.2.3 Mobility and Safety

Table 7-3 compares mobility and safety characteristics of a passenger rail system within the 

Yellow Corridor Alternative to those of a passenger rail system within the Orange Corridor 

Alternative.

Table 7-3. Comparison of Mobility and Safety Characteristics

Criterion Yellow Corridor Orange Corridor No Build

Urban stations (conceptual) 14 12 0

Rural stations (conceptual) 1 3 0

Daily commuter ridership 16,700 13,940 0

Daily intercity ridership 3,360 4,140 0

Reduction in automobile VMT 

(STOPS)

566,914 570,268 0

Transit and pedestrian connectivitya D C F

Tucson to Phoenix commuter rail 

travel time (hours:minutes)

1:35 1:45 N/A

Tucson to Phoenix intercity rail 

travel time (hours:minutes)

1:23 1:30 2:22b

Estimated at-grade crossingsc 112 55 0

d

2035 reduction in fatalities per 

million VMT (STOPS)

2.2 2.2 0

e

2035 reduction in injuries per 

million VMT (STOPS)

33.2 33.4 0

e

Notes:

a Graded on an A-F scale with “A” offering the greatest number of transit and pedestrian connections, and “F” the lowest 

number of connections

b Year 2035 Baseline

c At-grade crossings inferred based on ADOT rail crossing database and aerial photography review

d Via I-10

e Zero reduction in fatalities and injuries; potential increases from traffic congestion not calculated for this Tier 1 analysis

In summary, a passenger rail system within the Yellow Corridor Alternative would provide 

shorter trip times to a larger total number of riders, with reductions in injuries and fatalities 

over the No Build Alternative similar to those for a passenger rail system within the Orange 

Corridor Alternative.
7 Comparison of Alternatives

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement 7-6

7.3 Comparison Summary and Recommended Preferred Alternative

The No Build Alternative does not meet the purpose and need for a transportation solution. It 

does not divert highway trips within the Tucson-to-Phoenix study corridor, reduce congestion, 

increase access to employment and activity centers, or provide reliable travel times and a level 

of safety comparable to that offered by passenger rail travel. The No Build Alternative would 

not connect the suburban and rural areas between Tucson and Phoenix with a high-capacity 

travel option, facilitate continued development of a multimodal transportation network, or 

provide mobility choices for existing and future needs.

In summary, considering the overall estimated costs, projected ridership, agency and public 

input, and potential environmental impacts associated with implementing passenger rail within 

in the corridor alternatives, a passenger rail system within the Yellow Corridor Alternative is 

considered to be more cost efficient and better performing than a passenger rail system within 

the Orange Corridor Alternative, with similar potential impacts to the environment. ADOT 

recommended the Yellow Corridor Alternative as the preferred alternative in the Tier 1 EIS. 

Based on that recommendation and the analysis in this EIS, FRA has identified the Yellow 

Corridor Alternative as the preferred alternative for purposes of NEPA.

7.3.1 Route Options

Within the preferred alternative, optional routings would be considered in Tier 2 studies as 

potential solutions for addressing concerns. While the preferred corridor alternative follows 

existing transportation system alignments (such as the UP Railroad), challenges within portions 

of this corridor may arise during further analysis. The options presented are based on a highlevel viability assessment in response to stakeholder input. Existing conditions and 

environmental consequences for both options are covered under the analyses of the two 

corridor alternatives in the Tier 1 EIS. Figure 7-1 shows the entire Yellow Corridor Alternative, 

including the route options, which together constitute the preferred alternative.

Tempe Options

As a variant of the corridor alternatives studied, a segment of what was the Orange Corridor 

Alternative could be used in the corridor between Tucson and Phoenix through Tempe. This 

routing option through Tempe could be used to avoid or minimize the potential use of Section 

4(f) resources and/or potential adverse effects to historic properties (Figure 7-2).

Pinal County Option

Figure 7-3 shows an optional routing for the Yellow Corridor Alternative in Pinal County. Should 

an alignment along existing UP ROW or elsewhere within the 1-mile-wide corridor alternative 

through Pinal County not be feasible, this option would utilize a portion of the Orange Corridor 
7 Comparison of Alternatives

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement 7-7

Alternative along the planned North-South Corridor from I-10 to its intersection with the 

Copper Basin Railroad, as described earlier in the discussion of the Teal Alternative under 

Section 2.3.3, Level 3 Screening.
!( !( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

PIMA COUNTY MARICOPA COUNTY PINAL COUNTY

GILA COUNTY

PINAL COUNTY

Tohono O'odham Nation

!"a

!"`

)e

Q?Á

Q?¿

Q?Æ

UAõ

UAå

UAÖ

Q? ̈

!"c

!"a

)e

UAÖ

!"a

UAå

Q?Ê

Q?É

!"a

!"d

Q?È

Ak-Chin

Indian 

Community

Gila River

Indian 

Community

)e

Salt River 

Pima-Maricopa

 Indian Community

Santa Cruz River

Salt River

Gila River

Queen Creek

Verde River

UAÛ

UAð

e

MARICOPA COUNTY

e

Tohono O'odham

Nation San Xavier

District

Q?É

Florence

Marana

Mesa

Gilbert

Phoenix

Oro 

Valley

Glendale

Peoria

Scottsdale

Goodyear

Sky Harbor International

Airport

Tucson

International

Airport

Coolidge

Eloy

Casa

Grande

Surprise

Buckeye

San Tan

Valley

Catalina

Foothills

Tucson

Guadalupe Tempe e

Phoenix-Mesa

Gateway

Airport

7 Comparison of Alternatives

Figure 7-1. Yellow Corridor Alternative with Route Options

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement 7-8

Approximate Station

!( System Hub

!( Station

e

Airport

Yellow Corridor

Alternative

Optional Route

Interstate

State or US Highway

Railroad

Major Drainage

Federal Land

National Forest

Tribal Land

State Trust Land

City Boundary

Le g e nd

0 5 10

Miles

Sources: Esri 2014; Arizona Department of Transportation 2013;

Arizona Land Resource Information System 2013

N

e
Co n n o lly F ie ld

at Co n n o llyM id dle S c h o o l

D a u m ie r

Pa rk

E sq u e r

Pa rk

S e lle h

Pa rk

S h a lim a rCo u n tr yClu b

E sc a la n tePa rk

R ive rv iew

Pa rk

A S U K a rs te n

G o lf Co u rse

R io

S a la d o

Pa rk

Pa p a g o

Pa rk

R o llin g H ills

G o lf Co u rse

Te m p e

B ea c h

Pa rk H ay de n

Bu tte

P re s e rv e

W e stsid eM u lti-G e n e ra tio n a lCe n te r

M itch e llPa rk

D a le yPa rk

Birc h e tt

Pa rk

H u d so n

Pa rk

M e ye r

Pa rk

Cre a m e r yPa rk

S a l t R i v e r

I n d i a n B e n d W a s h

HAYDEN RD WASHINGTON ST CURRY RD

WASHINGTON ST

UNIVERSITY DR

BROADWAY RD MCCLINTOCK DR

RURAL RD

RIO SALADO PKWY

UNIVERSITY DR

PRIEST DR

U n iv ers ity P a rk

H isto ric D istric t

B o rde n H o m e s

H isto ric D istric t

M o e u r

Pa rk

Aå

AÖ

!"

)v

a

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement 7-9

Comparison of Alternatives

Figure 7-2. Tempe Route Option

7

InterstateState or US HighwayLocal RoadRailroad

Major DrainageTempe Corridor OptionsPublic Parks, Refuges, andRecreation Areas

Section 6(f ) ResourcesNational RegisterHistoric DIstrictFederal Land

National ForestTribal LandState Trust Land

Le g e nd

0 0.5 1

Miles

NSources: Arizona Department of Environmental Quality 2013; Environmental Protection Agency 2013; Esri 2014; Arizona Department of Transportation 2013;Arizona Land Resource Information System 2013
Florence

!"a

Q?Á

UAñ

Gila River

Indian 

Community

Gila River

Coolidge

Eloy

Casa

Grande

UAñ

Q?Á

Q?É

Q?É

UAú

Cop per Basin Railway

7 Comparison of Alternatives

Figure 7-3. Pinal Route Option

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement 7-10

Yellow Corridor

Optional Route

Interstate

State or US Highway

Railroad

Major Drainage

Federal Land

Tribal Land

State Trust Land

City Boundary

Le g e nd

0 2 4

Miles

Sources: US National Park Service 2013; Maricopa County Flood

Control District 2013; Pima Department of Transportation 2013;

Esri 2014; Arizona Department of Transportation 2013;

Arizona Land Resource Information System 2013

N